ok me and VegnaBlitz have taken all the decent suggestions and added them to a big online poll, the results of which will be passed onto the koc admins.

you can vote here: http://www.giveupalready.com/age4poll.php

should be bug free, but as it was done quite quickly i hold up on garuntees... but yeah enjoy.

results can now be viewed here, no snazy graphics like the normal polls but you can't have everything :)

http://www.giveupalready.com/age4poll.php?do=view

Blitz

4th February 2005, 07:37 AM

Please take the time to vote carefully, and recommend the link to everyone you know who plays KoC. If you are in an alliance, consider posting it on your forums. We want input from as many KoC players as possible, as the admins will review this poll carefully when deciding to make game improvements.

Thank you.

PS: It should go without saying, but be sure to read through the entirety of it. Important issues are listed throughout.

i get this across the very top of the screen when it gets to the "thanks for voting" message

Baloo-DM

4th February 2005, 08:08 AM

well i voted but there are a lot of places where you dont quite give the right combination of options that i want to vote for. Also i cant see how the voting's going :( ie, results would be nice ;)

archdruid_tr

4th February 2005, 08:14 AM

it would be nice if we were allowed to see the results

btw it looks like the next age will be great if u add features about the clans
good job :)

Tekano

4th February 2005, 08:21 AM

definetely a nice poll and I gotta go with the 2 above :) results for us to see would be nice yeah :)

oh btw, I'm almost sure carnage is already working on that so it won't be long 'till we can see it as well :)

AeonsLegend

4th February 2005, 09:52 AM

I hope you guys understand that the results of a poll really don't mean much. What if only the small players that log on once a week vote and then the larger players that are there several times a day see options changed just because there's more smaller players. Seems unfair. I voted, but I doubt the results will reflect the most active players opinions. I don't understand where the option "transfer gold to other players" is coming from either. If you want people to stop cheating then this option should not be in the list.

Zap

4th February 2005, 10:15 AM

there is only one error, when I voted (thanks for the poll :)) I tried to click the link to the poll again, and I could vote again!?

Blitz

4th February 2005, 10:37 AM

I hope you guys understand that the results of a poll really don't mean much. What if only the small players that log on once a week vote and then the larger players that are there several times a day see options changed just because there's more smaller players. Seems unfair. I voted, but I doubt the results will reflect the most active players opinions.

The results of the poll reflect the views of players who are active in alliances/GUA. Nearly all players in the top 1000 should know of this poll, as being in an alliance recognized on GUA is pretty much required for reaching those ranks. Besides, I'm sure that everyone in the top 1000 at least knows about GUA. The players who vote are the ones who are active in the KoC Community, and the ones who are active in the KoC Community have overall higher ranks...So I think it will reflect the opinion of those best informed.

Also, there are a total of 6000 users registered on GUA, yet 135,000 registered KoC players. And, I figure that 4000 of the users (max) of the 6000 are here for KoC, the others are here for the rest of GUA. (This figure is probably very generous to the KoC Section, but we don't have an official count, so it's my guess.) So, it can be assumed that only these players who are on GUA, and those who they tell about it, will see it.

However, of these 4000 or so, there are obviously many players who are new and on GUA. Many only visit the barracks. These players will be directed here by my sigature, as well as through alliances, etc. So, this poll will represent both higher ranked and lower ranked players. The best informed, and the majority, fairly equally. But, aside from this, the majority of KoC players do know what they're doing, and if they like or don't like an idea, they will vote appropriately.

I don't understand where the option "transfer gold to other players" is coming from either. If you want people to stop cheating then this option should not be in the list.

This option is wanted by both high ranked players to manage sell-offs, and lower ranked players so that they can transfer some gold to their newer members, or give them a boost for reasons relating to attacks/sabotages.

There are going to be new measures added to prevent hackings, and corrections made. Aside from this, transferring gold is more of a way to make it easier for players to transfer gold while retaining their DA...When an account is hacked, the DA is sold off anyways.

I really don't see how this would encourage hackings. They can simply sell off the account, if they wanted to go after that player/their gold, and get 95-99% of it. This option has nothing to do with security, so it would not be any easier to get into the account, and selling off all weapons is about the same level of difficult as hitting a transfer gold button.

Edit:

there is only one error, when I voted (thanks for the poll ) I tried to click the link to the poll again, and I could vote again!?

I asked Carnage, and the poll has checks on IP and user ID, so no one can vote twice easily.

AeonsLegend

4th February 2005, 11:10 AM

Lets hope you're right Vegna,

and about the gold transfer, I didn't mean encourage hackings, I mean cheating. If there is a gold transfer option then people can get a benefit of opening up 100 accounts just for some extra TBG. IF they implement it there should be rules like: the account transfering the money should be larger and higher ranked than the one receiving the money. But even then cheating is possible albeit limited.

Blitz

4th February 2005, 11:47 AM

Lets hope you're right Vegna,

and about the gold transfer, I didn't mean encourage hackings, I mean cheating. If there is a gold transfer option then people can get a benefit of opening up 100 accounts just for some extra TBG. IF they implement it there should be rules like: the account transfering the money should be larger and higher ranked than the one receiving the money. But even then cheating is possible albeit limited.
Hopefully a player who cheats like that will be reported.

Also, the difficulty of registering all these accounts as well as fake emails, then clicking enough on these accounts to build up the TBG to a reasonable level on all of these accounts, and then spending on them regularly, would make the effort more difficult than actually building up an account the legal way. (And yes, autobuyers and autoclickers are going to be observed.)

But, there are other threads to debate certain issues such as this one. The official thread if one is applicable, the threads where the idea was first proposed, and, if one of those can't be found, the the "KoC Admin on Age 4" thread. This thread was meant to talk about the poll itself, and not become focused on one issue.

ssmythe

4th February 2005, 12:22 PM

I abstain, as this issue is not important to me

^ not exactly a helpful response since someone may feel that the issue is important although there isn't an option that fits their point of view. why not just add another option of "other", or a "don't know" category?

question 23 - what if i want the command chains reset and to start out with 100k gold and 100 turns? i can't choose that option, so do i "abstain because the issue isn't important to me"?

and some of the questions are so biased it's unbelievable frankly

and the answers to question 35 do not the fit question! the answer should be legal or illegal or don't know, (and has one of the koc admin actually confirmed that they are legal? or have you just assumed they are?) and you should have had a separate question to ask if people WANT spy scripts in the game - that would have been a more insightful question

^ same goes for your recruiter question - there ARE NO policies on recruiters. it would have been better to ask if people want recruiters in the game, and a second question, that if they do, how they should be regulated (eg a koc admin has to test and sanction it)

i may want to select more than option for some of the questions, however, i can't

you need to be very careful when you write surveys / questionnaires as you can inadvertently influence the way people vote ;-)

FIT - unless every alliance member is registered on GUA, they won't be able to see or vote in the poll.....

RienZei

4th February 2005, 01:06 PM

Amazing poll, I think the next age will be a whole new experience, I can't see the result of the poll, So i don't know what to excpect...

I hope the profile/avatar thing to be implemented, and keeping the SAb the same, btw the Hospital idea is amazing I love it...

Btw with All these options and new stuff coming I wonder how the admins will make them and implement them in a 3 weeks max period ?!?

Thnx alot for the poll...

fury

4th February 2005, 01:33 PM

I hope anyone taking this poll realizes that the admins aren't likely at all to implement any more than about 1/10th of the suggestions made. I've been there, done that, compiled a whole massive list (3 pages long) of the suggestions that were made before the beginning of Age 3 Beta, which pretty much everyone who was there doing the meetings about it agreed upon. Do you know which ones the admins implemented? Sabotage got harder than Age 2, lower TBG, fleeing from the battlefield, ignore list, commander switching, and vacation mode.

Sorry to burst your bubbles, but don't think that because something in this poll gets a popular vote, it's magically going to be put in.

GreenArrow

4th February 2005, 01:35 PM

For #7 (about spy immunity) I feel as though we should be able to get spy immunity but only if our Sentry is 3x more than our SA+DA.

EDIT - After reading #40... I have to say I'm sorry. I seriosuly never thought that any one would even consider that1. I didn't mean to admin bask so much. I really wanna cry, cuz I put alot of work into that. Even if the majority of people don't like it, I can understand cuz it's a really big change, but the fact that people do like it, and the fact that carnage thought it should be brought to the admins attention makes me feel... special. I'm sorry, but I had to say that, and I'm really sorry about doubting you admins.

DracoAffectus

4th February 2005, 02:56 PM

Nifty poll, just a few points of concern from me since some of the options don't quite fit what I want, or just aren't specific enough for me.

Concerning sabotage, (questions 6 through 9). I would like to see immunity at a point based on army size and/or strength somehow, but I would also like to see sabotaging made more effective. When we had sabotage in Age 2, it was almost too easy to sab, and too easy to get immunity. Now in Age 3, it's pretty much impossible to get immunity, and now sabotaging seems rather ineffective except among people just starting out(or all spy accounts). The spy/sab formulas could use some major reworking to make it actually effective and useful, but to still give immunity at some point(based on other factors, instead of fixed).

Question 12, Should unit production be changed?

I would just like to be more specific. I think the best way to improve Unit Production would be to make it units per turn instead of units per day.

It seems the options for this question should really be more specifc(perhaps you didn't think this was an important issue?).
I'd like to suggest the following options, if it's not too late.
1. Keep it as is
2. Just make it Unit Production cheaper
3. Just add more levels for Unit Production
4. Make Unit Production give you more soldiers with each upgrade(for example, first upgrade gives you 10 per day, then the next 20 per day, 30 per day, etc.)
5. Change Unit Production to give you soldiers every turn, instead of every day.
6. Options 2 & 3
7. Options 2 & 4
8. Options 3 & 4
9. Options 2 & 5
10. I abstain

For question 16a. Should commander changes be altered?

I think it should be left the same, except making it so ditching your commander doesn't count as a commander changing, only joining a commander counts as a change. (assuming it's not already like that, if it is my point is moot).

Concerning questions 18 through 20.

I would like to see a new Repair Rating, that would bring a new unit into the game, with upgrades similar to covert upgrades. Repairs costs could then be relative to your Repair Rating and weapon strength. And this new rating could introduce a new race into the game which would have a 25% Repair bonus. Can anyone think of a race that was supposed to be good at fixing stuff?

Question 21, Should a banking system be added?

I'm in favor of adding an open banking system(not an option but should be, http://www.giveupalready.com/showpost.php?p=174491&postcount=6 ).

With the open banking system, you basically get interest on the gold you have in your treasury, which can be stolen at any moment. This way cocky players who think they can't be beaten can leave gold out, and get a benefit out of it; but there gold is still at risk.

Question 24, Should a rank tracker be added?

What is meant by "rank tracker"?

Question 29, Should spy levels be added?

More spy levels, but not up to 20. That goes too high, I think. Maybe up to 12, or even 15. Some testing might be in order to figure out what the top spy level should be.

Question 31, Should mercenaries be changed?

I just had a brilliant idea for mercenaries. :D
Add a turn based cost. i.e. it would cost you money each turn to keep your mercenaries. Not a lot, and certainly not more than you get for having soldiers. I'm thinking each mercenary would cost you 15 gold per turn to keep. If you can't afford it, then the mercenary quits and goes back to the pool where he could be hired by someone else. The initial cost for hiring mercs would stay, else people could hire mercenaries they know they can't afford just to use once.

Question 34, Should searchable attack/intelligence logs be added?

Making them searchable seems unnecessary. I'm in favor of making intelligence files be organized by time of most recent mission, instead of oldest mission.

I think that's everything. :)

Blitz

4th February 2005, 02:59 PM

Thank you for votes, and comments on the poll.

You can now view the results of the poll here: http://www.giveupalready.com/age4poll.php?do=view

I abstain, as this issue is not important to me

^ not exactly a helpful response since someone may feel that the issue is important although there isn't an option that fits their point of view. why not just add another option of "other", or a "don't know" category?

It would take a while to code all of the "Other" and "Don't Know" options. I chose not to go with making 42 or 84 new options that basically say that there should be a change other than the main ideas, since these are the only ideas that have made it through long debate processes. The ideas that could not survive debates won't be added.

When it comes to adding "I abstain" specifically, I chose that wording because it is more specific and professional than "Other" or "Don't Know." Someone similar to you might say "I want to select an 'Other' option, but I don't have another option to suggest." Or, they might say "I would select the "Don't Know" option, but people might say "I do know what I want on this issue, I just don't agree with the current options."

I added the "This issue does not matter to me" as an afterthought, as we have both high percentages of young players who might not know what "Abstain" means, as well as even larger numbers of players who don't have English as a first language, and might not know that word. I also reason that if a player does not know the option that is most likely to have other thoughts will realize that since these are the main options, and if any are to be added, these would be it, that they would choose the option closest to their idea. If not, then the issue does not really matter to them. But, the important part is having an option for those who don't want to vote according to the main options, not the name of it.

question 23 - what if i want the command chains reset and to start out with 100k gold and 100 turns? i can't choose that option, so do i "abstain because the issue isn't important to me"?

That was an oversight on our part. As there were options basically split into "Continuity" and "Reform."

and some of the questions are so biased it's unbelievable frankly

Could you name them so that we can address them?

and the answers to question 35 do not the fit question! the answer should be legal or illegal or don't know, (and has one of the koc admin actually confirmed that they are legal? or have you just assumed they are?) and you should have had a separate question to ask if people WANT spy scripts in the game - that would have been a more insightful question

Question 35:

35. Should spy scripts, as used on IRC, be legal or illegal?
--1. Keep spy scripts legal 33
--2. Regulate scripts: Viewing gold is legal but auto-spying/attack/sabotage is not 36
--3. Ban and penalize players found to use spy/farm scripts 25
--4. I abstain, as this issue is not important to me 9

To address your question specifically and what they think they should be declared legal/illegal is often the same thing. What makes "Should it be legal or illegal" is because the admins are going to write the rules, not the wants. I suppose the answers would be different if we asked "Do you WANT spy scripts to be legal or illegal," it would be an interesting opinion question, but it would not be as relevant as asking the current question. (Personally, not to bias the poll, but I think spy scripts should be legal, although I don't want them to be.)

^ same goes for your recruiter question - there ARE NO policies on recruiters. it would have been better to ask if people want recruiters in the game, and a second question, that if they do, how they should be regulated (eg a koc admin has to test and sanction it)

There are policies on recruiters. That is why recruiters such as DES and PIBM were banned and their users suspended in Age 3 Beta. Currently, to have a valid recruiters, one must send the administrators an email and ask them to approve it's legality before they open it. I do not code, so I don't know the specifics, but you can ask Raato, Lor20, fury, LordStriker, or someone else about the specific requirements of recruiters.

i may want to select more than option for some of the questions, however, i can't

you need to be very careful when you write surveys / questionnaires as you can inadvertently influence the way people vote ;-)

We attempted adding "I agree with options ..." options on applicable points, but this poll was made in haste. (2-3 days.) I personally went through the entire last 5 months of the Throne Room, and the 300+ posts in the two new suggestion threads. We then wrote questions, options, editted, and coded. (Carnage handled the editting and coding.) I don't think we did too bad a job considering that we were trying to do this as quickly as possible. I know I spent 15-20 hours on it, and unless you can address a number of specific examples, I think we did it as well as anyone could.

FIT - unless every alliance member is registered on GUA, they won't be able to see or vote in the poll.....

This is the official forum of KoC. Alliances are, right now, recognized when they gain 5 members fill out an application for an alliance thread. (Whether they keep that thread active is their choice.) That is how alliances are added to the official list of alliances.

Also, it takes far less time to complete the registration on GUA than it does to fill out the poll. If they somehow manage to fill it out faster, then they aren't reading the questions.

Amazing poll, I think the next age will be a whole new experience, I can't see the result of the poll, So i don't know what to excpect...

I hope the profile/avatar thing to be implemented, and keeping the SAb the same, btw the Hospital idea is amazing I love it...

Btw with All these options and new stuff coming I wonder how the admins will make them and implement them in a 3 weeks max period ?!?

Thnx alot for the poll...
Thank you for your compliments, and taking the time to vote. :)

To answer your question, the changes won't all be implemented within 3 weeks. Many won't be added at all, for different reasons. (Keeping the game balanced, complexity of ideas, popular support, and if the admins like it or not, as well as the time it takes to make the additions.)

They will start to be added presumably when the age begins, but also throughout the age. Every once in a while, the game will go down, and when it is back up it will be changed slightly, much like Age 1.

I hope anyone taking this poll realizes that the admins aren't likely at all to implement any more than about 1/10th of the suggestions made. I've been there, done that, compiled a whole massive list (3 pages long) of the suggestions that were made before the beginning of Age 3 Beta, which pretty much everyone who was there doing the meetings about it agreed upon. Do you know which ones the admins implemented? Sabotage got harder than Age 2, lower TBG, fleeing from the battlefield, ignore list, commander switching, and vacation mode.

Sorry to burst your bubbles, but don't think that because something in this poll gets a popular vote, it's magically going to be put in

I have been here over a year too, I know that not nearly all of the suggestions will be included...

If the admins just make a few of the updates that receive popular support, I think that would be enough. They might even make some changes that don't receive popular support, since they know better than the average player. But, I don't deceive myself into thinking that everything will change because of a poll...

This poll is more than just listing suggestions. It also lists a central place to see what ideas are most popular, what has the greatest support, and a place to check in 6 months 'what was popularly demanded and what has been done'."

For #7 (about spy immunity) I feel as though we should be able to get spy immunity but only if our Sentry is 3x more than our SA+DA.

EDIT - After reading #40... I have to say I'm sorry. I seriosuly never thought that any one would even consider that1. I didn't mean to admin bask so much. I really wanna cry, cuz I put alot of work into that. Even if the majority of people don't like it, I can understand cuz it's a really big change, but the fact that people do like it, and the fact that carnage thought it should be brought to the admins attention makes me feel... special. I'm sorry, but I had to say that, and I'm really sorry about doubting you admins.

Our goal was to include all suggestions that were thoroughly showed out and had some support. (Not necessarily a majority of support, as that can be hard to gauge, as updates were made to it while the poll was open.) Some ideas were more complicated than others, and we generally chose to include the more simple suggestions if possible, for many reasons. But, if there was a unique idea that was backed up, we tried to include them too. (Heavy Mass Attacks and Hospital/Wounded Soldiers, etc.) :)

EDIT:

Nifty poll, just a few points of concern from me since some of the options don't quite fit what I want, or just aren't specific enough for me.

Concerning sabotage, (questions 6 through 9). I would like to see immunity at a point based on army size and/or strength somehow, but I would also like to see sabotaging made more effective. When we had sabotage in Age 2, it was almost too easy to sab, and too easy to get immunity. Now in Age 3, it's pretty much impossible to get immunity, and now sabotaging seems rather ineffective except among people just starting out(or all spy accounts). The spy/sab formulas could use some major reworking to make it actually effective and useful, but to still give immunity at some point(based on other factors, instead of fixed).

I originally tried to combine the ideas into one giant poll, but that proved to be unwieldy. As sabotage is complicated, the results of the poll will (we hope) be taken as suggestions for outlines in a new sabotage formula, which will be quite complicated. We also pay attention for long, well thought out, posts for how to change the formulas to better balance the game, while also appealing to most players.

Question 12, Should unit production be changed?

I would just like to be more specific. I think the best way to improve Unit Production would be to make it units per turn instead of units per day.

It seems the options for this question should really be more specifc(perhaps you didn't think this was an important issue?).
I'd like to suggest the following options, if it's not too late.
1. Keep it as is
2. Just make it Unit Production cheaper
3. Just add more levels for Unit Production
4. Make Unit Production give you more soldiers with each upgrade(for example, first upgrade gives you 10 per day, then the next 20 per day, 30 per day, etc.)
5. Change Unit Production to give you soldiers every turn, instead of every day.
6. Options 2 & 3
7. Options 2 & 4
8. Options 3 & 4
9. Options 2 & 5
10. I abstain

I take the issue seriously, and think that it could be a major change in the game, making it less dependent on clicking. On review by others, it was found that my original question on what the importance of unit production was either too expansive or not specific enough. It's a very complicated issue, but hopefully the admins will review the various threads that have been posted, since it is more controversial and many qualified posts on how to change this have been made.

For question 16a. Should commander changes be altered?

I think it should be left the same, except making it so ditching your commander doesn't count as a commander changing, only joining a commander counts as a change. (assuming it's not already like that, if it is my point is moot).

Right now, I think ditching your current commander does count as a commander change. While this problem has been mentioned, it seemed a bit repetitive, and most people just select a new commander before ditching their old one. This idea is a good, common sense suggestion, and I'll include it in a final summery of the poll. I imagine nearly all players who wish to make any of the three suggestions, which is the majority of players, would also like to include this suggestion.

Concerning questions 18 through 20.

I would like to see a new Repair Rating, that would bring a new unit into the game, with upgrades similar to covert upgrades. Repairs costs could then be relative to your Repair Rating and weapon strength. And this new rating could introduce a new race into the game which would have a 25% Repair bonus. Can anyone think of a race that was supposed to be good at fixing stuff?

This is kind of a complicated suggestion, since it involved adding an entirely new race...For a lot of players, this would be suggesting that repair is as important statistic as SA, DA, Spy and Sentry. I think it would more fall under a new race suggestion, although it has a lot to do with repair costs.

Also, new races have been given a "Thumbs down" by votes, in general, and this seems like it wouldn't be the most popular race suggestion, so it couldn't really be added to the poll.

Question 21, Should a banking system be added?

I'm in favor of adding an open banking system(not an option but should be, http://www.giveupalready.com/showpo...491&postcount=6 ).

With the open banking system, you basically get interest on the gold you have in your treasury, which can be stolen at any moment. This way cocky players who think they can't be beaten can leave gold out, and get a benefit out of it; but there gold is still at risk.

I was considering this, as it would make strategy more important in KoC. But, this would be quite controversial, and a large change in how the game is played, so I decided to simply ask first if players would approve of a banking system. Right now the votes are:

21. Should a banking system be added?
--No banking system should be added to KoC (left as-is) 65
--Players should be allowed to store a certain amount of gold 78
--I abstain, this issue is not important to me 6

So the system is still pretty controversial.

Question 24, Should a rank tracker be added?

What is meant by "rank tracker"?

A rank tracker would basically be a system that would record player's rankings, and be able to track a player as they move up and down through the ranks, presumably day to day.

The main concern with this idea would be the wear on the server, having to track all of this additional data. It would be a balance of trying to have the system be usable, while not being too much on the server, which would be the admin's discretion if they decide to implement the idea.

Question 29, Should spy levels be added?

More spy levels, but not up to 20. That goes too high, I think. Maybe up to 12, or even 15. Some testing might be in order to figure out what the top spy level should be.

I suggested 20 because I know that I, as a top 500 player at the beginning of the beta, reached spy level 10 in well under 2 weeks. In Age 2, as I started mid-age, I reached level 10 definetly within 2 months without hardly any serious clicking. Similar to the upgrades, the price doubling every time would make this system a bit hard to top out very quickly, with the exceptions of a handful of players. (The same ones who gained the Hand of God within a few months.)

But you're right, it would need testing to prove that it would work.

Question 31, Should mercenaries be changed?

I just had a brilliant idea for mercenaries.
Add a turn based cost. i.e. it would cost you money each turn to keep your mercenaries. Not a lot, and certainly not more than you get for having soldiers. I'm thinking each mercenary would cost you 15 gold per turn to keep. If you can't afford it, then the mercenary quits and goes back to the pool where he could be hired by someone else. The initial cost for hiring mercs would stay, else people could hire mercenaries they know they can't afford just to use once.

A version of this could be a good idea, but, as it is, a lot of high ranking players are losing thousands of mercenaries in single attacks. This basically negates the gold they gain, which is one of the reasons they attack so rarely and many have over 9000 turns. While it might work for some rankings, it would be difficult to apply to all of them.

This idea would also have to be debated before adding to a poll for admin review.

Question 34, Should searchable attack/intelligence logs be added?

Making them searchable seems unnecessary. I'm in favor of making intelligence files be organized by time of most recent mission, instead of oldest mission.

I think that's everything.

It seems unnecessary to me too, but several different players brought it up, and there were no specific objections as why not to do it, so it was added to the poll.

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. :)

boriszima

4th February 2005, 05:28 PM

Hopefully a player who cheats like that will be reported.

Also, the difficulty of registering all these accounts as well as fake emails, then clicking enough on these accounts to build up the TBG to a reasonable level on all of these accounts, and then spending on them regularly, would make the effort more difficult than actually building up an account the legal way. (And yes, autobuyers and autoclickers are going to be observed.)

But, there are other threads to debate certain issues such as this one. The official thread if one is applicable, the threads where the idea was first proposed, and, if one of those can't be found, the the "KoC Admin on Age 4" thread. This thread was meant to talk about the poll itself, and not become focused on one issue.

uhm this is how its get done and been done before
main account which in turn has many other fake accounts underneath.
and like you mention this combination with autoclickers which actually click or not click and autobuyers it will make only deadly account. i mean there was one who did it and got banned. then he would sell off those accounts to main one and make it even bigger. all possible

i voted in poll, most options were good. some of course had some kind of "bad stuff" but overall good
like fury said, admins will look it it, see if its easy to code and do what it takes.
i am glad that most voted to start new age asap with small security changes.

Vegna and Carnage, mad props to you guys for such great work. i bet it took a lot of time and all.
btw i forgot to to make a thread about a master recruiter that should be run by koc itself, more page views for it and then it can be easily checked for fake clicking. oh well

Baldwin

4th February 2005, 07:56 PM

nice but you guys dont seem to understand what requirements an objective poll needs to fulfill. If you have one option saying no just keep it as it is. And two or three options saying ' change it' but then in a slightly different way then the first option will always win, cause the people voting to change, divide their votes amongst three options.

Blitz

4th February 2005, 08:38 PM

nice but you guys dont seem to understand what requirements an objective poll needs to fulfill. If you have one option saying no just keep it as it is. And two or three options saying ' change it' but then in a slightly different way then the first option will always win, cause the people voting to change, divide their votes amongst three options.
With all the complexities in this poll, if we were to break up the questions into yes or no answers, we would have over (or near) 100 questions. We did include "Both of these option" answers in most questions where it was relevent.

Don't worry, when the great majority of the results come in and they are tallied, we will not simply add up the ones for all the different answers, but factor them all together so that we can have accurate results.

So, it would be recommended that the 1st feature be added, but it could go either way on the 2nd feature, as 75 and 80 are close. (Hopefully, as I'm expecting well over 1000 votes, things won't come down to the wire...Although they probably will anyways.)

SataiDelenn

5th February 2005, 07:05 AM

Lets hope you're right Vegna,

and about the gold transfer, I didn't mean encourage hackings, I mean cheating. If there is a gold transfer option then people can get a benefit of opening up 100 accounts just for some extra TBG. IF they implement it there should be rules like: the account transfering the money should be larger and higher ranked than the one receiving the money. But even then cheating is possible albeit limited.

I see your point Aeon. I do think it would be a good idea to have the option though for those in Command Chains who have an officer that gets sabbed badly, having an option to give them some gold to get back on their feet would be nice, but at the same time I could easily see it being abused by those who have fakey fakey officers. You know. Attacking with one account and then selling off to the main account? But I figure the option is worth a try in a beta age if there is one.

I also agree with Baloo that some of the questions that offered combos didn't offer the correct combo. Question number 23 is a PERFECT example....

23. What should happen on Day 1 of Age 4?
--Start out with command chains in-place, as in previous ages 89
--Start out with 1000 gold, few turns, as in previous ages 18
--Start out with no command chains in-place, unlike previous ages 31
--Start out with 100,000 gold, and 100 turns, unlike previous ages 71
--I agree with both options 2 & 3 32
--I agree with both options 2 & 4 22
--I abstain, this issue is not important to me 13

As you can see, most people voted for keeping the command chains intact. I also voted for this option but did desperately look for a choice that combined number ONE AND FOUR rather then two and four. I think keeping the command chains intact AND getting 100,000 gold plus ONE HUNDRED TURNS would be kick@$$ cool!!!! But the choice of 1 & 4 was not offered so I chose to keep the Command Chain intact because of all of the choices that one was most important.

Also, I abstained from choosing anything with the master alliance thing because no one ever answered my question as to what that is. I didn't want to vote for anything that I didn't understand.

Well, that's my two (hundred) cents on the issue. I have to say that I was extremely surprised at some of the choices people made on the poll.

elalb

5th February 2005, 08:28 AM

I like that poll i just hope that the admins keep this in mined and check on it to see the results.

Blitz

5th February 2005, 08:43 AM

I see your point Aeon. I do think it would be a good idea to have the option though for those in Command Chains who have an officer that gets sabbed badly, having an option to give them some gold to get back on their feet would be nice, but at the same time I could easily see it being abused by those who have fakey fakey officers. You know. Attacking with one account and then selling off to the main account? But I figure the option is worth a try in a beta age if there is one.

I also agree with Baloo that some of the questions that offered combos didn't offer the correct combo. Question number 23 is a PERFECT example....

23. What should happen on Day 1 of Age 4?
--Start out with command chains in-place, as in previous ages 89
--Start out with 1000 gold, few turns, as in previous ages 18
--Start out with no command chains in-place, unlike previous ages 31
--Start out with 100,000 gold, and 100 turns, unlike previous ages 71
--I agree with both options 2 & 3 32
--I agree with both options 2 & 4 22
--I abstain, this issue is not important to me 13

As you can see, most people voted for keeping the command chains intact. I also voted for this option but did desperately look for a choice that combined number ONE AND FOUR rather then two and four. I think keeping the command chains intact AND getting 100,000 gold plus ONE HUNDRED TURNS would be kick@$$ cool!!!! But the choice of 1 & 4 was not offered so I chose to keep the Command Chain intact because of all of the choices that one was most important.

Also, I abstained from choosing anything with the master alliance thing because no one ever answered my question as to what that is. I didn't want to vote for anything that I didn't understand.

Well, that's my two (hundred) cents on the issue. I have to say that I was extremely surprised at some of the choices people made on the poll.
I just reviewed my logs on the poll, and there was a typo on question 23. I had originally put down for the "Both" options agreeing with "1 & 2" or "3 & 4" although it was somehow changed to "2 & 3" and "2 & 4." (I saved this as 3 seperate documents as I worked, as I was very careful about not losing my work.) But, as the first complaints on this started to come in 12 hours or so after the poll was created, and 150 votes were cast by that time, it was a bit late to change it, and we weren't about to start the whole thing over and make those 150 people vote again, as many probably would not. (Oops.)

We will note this to the admins that a number of people would like to have the command chains stay in place, and the Day 1 extra turns/gold.

But, actually, this brings up an interesting story. While most of our choices were discussed ad nauseum, there was a new member who suggested this Day 1 bonus gold/turns in the "KoC Admin on Age 4" thread, who claimed he was speaking for new players and how to keep them interested in KoC. I reviewed the throne room, and didn't see any suggestion similar to it. So, this was one of the very few questions that made the poll without a great deal of discussion, and other than that options glitch, people have been very enthusiastic about it. :)

Also, you mentioned the alliance master list:

2. What do you think of the idea to add a master list of alliances?
--I disagree and would not want an alliance master list or related changes 30
--I agree and would like an alliance rating system 50
--I agree and would like alliance members to be labeled/tagged 56
--I agree and would like to see both options 2 & 3 106
--I abstain, this issue is not important to me 38

The alliance master list was something that Nick mentioned in his initial post in "KoC Admin on Age 4." So, we're really not sure what form it would take. I started to listen to different suggestions on this topic, and the two biggest ones that people seemed to want were a system to indicate which alliance you belong in, and to rank all alliances.

Some poll options that I think have pretty interesting results:

6. Should sabotage remain in KoC or be changed?
-- Yes, the current system of sabotage should remain in KoC 81
--No, sabotage should be removed entirely 17
--Sabotage should remain, but it should be changed some 175
--I abstain, this issue is not important to me 5
7. Would you be in favor of sabotage immunity?
--No, there should be no sabotage immunity 130
--Yes, and sabotage immunity should be similar to Age 2 (at a set point in sentry) 33
--Yes, and sabotage immunity should be related to army size/strength 60
--Yes, and I would be in favor of either option 2 or 3 52
--I abstain, this issue is not important to me 4
8. Would you be in favor of sabotage costing turns?
--No, sabotage should not cost turns 108
--Yes, sabotage should cost 1-2 turns per attempt 103
--Yes, sabotage should cost 3-4 turns per attempt 62
--I abstain, this issue is not important to me 7
9. Would you be in favor of other changes to sabotage?
--No, I would not be in favor of other changes in sabotage 68
--There should be a limit to how much a player can sabotage others 17
--There should be a limit to how much a player can be sabotaged himself 13
--Sabotage should damage, but not destroy, weapons 37
--Spies should lose tools in failed sabotage missions 28
--I am in favor of options 2 & 3 22
--I am in favor of options 4 & 5 24
--I am in favor of options 2, 3, 4, & 5 56
--I abstain, this issue is not important to me 12

While a great majority of players agree that sabotage should be changed, they can't seem to agree on how, and can't get a majority. In this case, I would say that we have to figure that approx. 80 people who voted for no changes also voted for the same option on the 3 following topics, and that number should be roughly deducted. Although I do find this particularly interesting...

6. Should sabotage remain in KoC or be changed?
-- Yes, the current system of sabotage should remain in KoC 81
9. Would you be in favor of other changes to sabotage?
--No, I would not be in favor of other changes in sabotage 68

It would appear that by the time at least 13 players read all the different options on how to improve sabotage, they decided to pick one.

This is the sort of poll where we have to be careful in interpretting results, of course. But, the most popular changes/non-changes would be recommended to the admins, after figuring in the average of the changes, so that the majority of players probably don't get exactly what they want, but everyone gets something that they can deal with.

Other topics I find interesting:

10. What is your opinion on mass attacks?
--Keep the formulas as they are 66
--Strengthen mass attacks to levels similar to Age 1/Age 2 damages 54
--Add a mass attack feature for alliances (If in-game alliance system is added) 54
--I support both options 2 & 3 82
--I abstain, this issue is not important to me 21

In other words...

No changes: 66
Strengthen: 136
Alliance mass: 136
Abstain: 21

Over a 2-1 majority favoring making mass attacks more important in two different ways, at this point.

Topics on unit production and clicks:

12. Should unit production be changed?
--Unit production should be not be changed 69
--Unit production should be made somewhat more effective compared to clicking 106
--Unit production should be made as effective as clicking on recruiters for most 47
--Unit production should be made more effective than clicking on recruiters 39
--I abstain, this issue is not important to me 17
13. Should the unique link clicking system be changed/limited?
--The clicking system is fine as-is—No limit needed 189
--Clicking should no longer be used to gain soldiers 24
--Clicking should be limited to (500-1000) per day 35
--Clicking should be limited, but above 1000 per day 15
--I abstain, this issue is not important to me 14
14. Should officer bonuses be altered?
--The bonus soldiers commanders receive should not be changed 187
--The bonus soldiers commanders receive should be limited per day 29
--Commanders should not receive bonus soldiers from officers 13
--Commanders should receive bonuses from officers, but not sub-officers 18
--I agree with both options 2 & 4 22
--I abstain, this issue is not important to me 9
32. How should recruiters be regulated?
--1. Maintain current recruiter policies 232
--2. Make all recruiters illegal 29
--3. I abstain, as this issue is not important to me 18

It appears that the majority of players want clicking and recruiters to remain as they are, according to the last 3 questions I picked. However, judging by the first question, they also want unit production to be made a good bit more effective (although not as effective as recruiters) on average.

Also, I see two topics that I thought added as they were unique ideas on how to give players more options gaining a fair, although certainly not commanding, lead:

37. Add “Heavy Mass Attacks” http://www.giveupalready.com/showthread.php?t=9634
--1. Heavy Mass Attacks should not be added 88
--2. Heavy Mass Attacks should be added exactly as originally proposed 42
--3. Heavy Mass Attacks should be added, but should be reviewed by admins for minor changes 100
--4. I abstain, as this issue is not important to me 48

In other words...

Don't add: 88
Add as-is: 42
Add (w/ changes): 100
Abstain: 48

So, 142 would be in favor of adding in some form, as compared to 88 who are against. The majority say to add it, but have the admins change it a bit...We'll have to look at the specific thread http://www.giveupalready.com/showthread.php?t=9634 to see what the most feasible changes are.

41. Would you approve of an option allowing two armies to work together to attack one?
--1. No, I would not want cooperative attacks in KoC 113
--2. Yes, I would like to see cooperative attacks in KoC 141
--3. I abstain, as this issue is not important to me 25

While 141 to 113 is not a commanding lead by any means, let's take a look at the percentages:

Out of 279 votes:

No: 40.5%
Yes: 50.5%
Abstain: 8.9%

So, the "Yes" option is 20% more popular than the "No" option, which is a fair lead.

Some very interesting results, but we'll have to wait until about the time Age 4 starts to know the final statistics. This is a good indicator of where things will go, but you never know how it will develop, as we only have a small fraction of the total votes in.

lord of storms

5th February 2005, 10:15 AM

41. Would you approve of an option allowing two armies to work together to attack one?

That comes from my thread, should I blow it up some more and give more details? Because my forum provides a more basic sculputre. If the majority like it, then ill be happy to add more.

Blitz

5th February 2005, 10:52 AM

41. Would you approve of an option allowing two armies to work together to attack one?

That comes from my thread, should I blow it up some more and give more details? Because my forum provides a more basic sculputre. If the majority like it, then ill be happy to add more.
Go for it. Provide a brief summery on the top of your post if you'd like, and it might convince people. Right now the results are not so favorable, but there are still a lot of votes coming in.

fury

5th February 2005, 12:07 PM

26. Should weapons be changed?
...
--Add more weapons so that fewer soldiers are needed 131
The only thing this will do is inflation of stats, same as when the blackpowder missiles and invisibility shields were added. Eventually everyone is able to buy them and so it does not give any advantage to the accounts with less soldiers than it did to add new weapons back when excaliburs, dragons, battle axes, flaming arrows, and dragonskins were the best.

david_eggy

5th February 2005, 12:32 PM

You know what I find funny? The fact that all throughout this age everyone said that the admins better not pull another 6 month beta period. And now everyone is voting for just that.

I know that this is a choice that was not counted on (6 month beta or no new age yet), but I still find it funny.

Blitz

5th February 2005, 12:36 PM

The only thing this will do is inflation of stats, same as when the blackpowder missiles and invisibility shields were added. Eventually everyone is able to buy them and so it does not give any advantage to the accounts with less soldiers than it did to add new weapons back when excaliburs, dragons, battle axes, flaming arrows, and dragonskins were the best.
The problem this suggestion is supposed to fix is that some players (even ones with over 10,000 soldiers) now have all their soldiers equipped with BPMs, and have a difficult time getting enough soldiers to equip all their BPMs, and still train some spies and sentries.

Figuring that a soldier produces 28 gold now, it would take 28,000 turns for 1 soldier to produce enough gold for 1 BPM. However, because there is so much clicking early in the age, the fact that some players do make a living off of attacking rather than TBG, and that soldiers are often killed near the end of the age...Plus the fact that ages are now tending to be about 7 months long...This problem has been reported, and is understandable. So, I put it up as a topic, instead of offering the general advice of "Click more."

Lowering the amount of TBG that each soldier/spy receives would also solve this problem, but I have a feeling that people wouldn't want to vote for that. Especially since many of the players are children who do not understand economic concepts. (What kid would say that they would rather have everyone have less money rather than more money?)

EDIT:

You know what I find funny? The fact that all throughout this age everyone said that the admins better not pull another 6 month beta period. And now everyone is voting for just that.

I know that this is a choice that was not counted on (6 month beta or no new age yet), but I still find it funny.

1. Which option is preferable in the start of the new age?
--Start ASAP, add improvements as possible 252
--Wait for completion, start new Age in Summer 56
--I abstain, both options are equally desirable 34

I think it's kind of funny too. But then again, this age has lasted a good while, so perhaps these 56 players don't remember/weren't there for the beta.

There is a majority of players (5 to 1!) saying that they'd like the age to end asap, and the admins have said that they intend to do so, so I wouldn't worry about this. :)

fury

5th February 2005, 12:41 PM

The problem this suggestion is supposed to fix is that some players (even ones with over 10,000 soldiers) now have all their soldiers equipped with BPMs, and have a difficult time getting enough soldiers to equip all their BPMs, and still train some spies and sentries.

Figuring that a soldier produces 28 gold now, it would take 28,000 turns for 1 soldier to produce enough gold for 1 BPM. However, because there is so much clicking early in the age, the fact that some players do make a living off of attacking rather than TBG, and that soldiers are often killed near the end of the age...Plus the fact that ages are now tending to be about 7 months long...This problem has been reported, and is understandable. So, I put it up as a topic, instead of offering the general advice of "Click more."

Lowering the amount of TBG that each soldier/spy receives would also solve this problem, but I have a feeling that people wouldn't want to vote for that. Especially since many of the players are children who do not understand economic concepts. (What kid would say that they would rather have everyone have less money rather than more money?)
This will still happen even with much stronger, more expensive weapons; the only difference is that they will have more strike action/defense action than someone who's filled up with BPMs and shields now.

ROCK LOBSTER

5th February 2005, 02:57 PM

so, i'm back ... but well, i didn't even read all the polls b4 me...but anywayz i liked the poll cuz it's based on what has been going on in the throne room for a while... it pretty much covers all of the issues we've discussed about.

i didn't voted on any "it's not important to me" cuz altho it may not be i have an opinion about it. If someone doesn't know maybe it's because they don't care so much about it... i dunno. nice poll... and i'm glad someone does take the initiative to actually do something. lotta ppl complain, but who helps out?

Anywayz, about not everybody being able to vote...in the game there's a link to GuA... it IS the official place to talk about the game... if people are in their alliance and they don't join gua, it's like when you don't get your ID to go voting for a president. If you're not active, dun complain.

u_u

SataiDelenn

5th February 2005, 03:03 PM

EDIT:

1. Which option is preferable in the start of the new age?
--Start ASAP, add improvements as possible 252
--Wait for completion, start new Age in Summer 56
--I abstain, both options are equally desirable 34

I think it's kind of funny too. But then again, this age has lasted a good while, so perhaps these 56 players don't remember/weren't there for the beta.

There is a majority of players (5 to 1!) saying that they'd like the age to end asap, and the admins have said that they intend to do so, so I wouldn't worry about this. :)

Well, I was there for the beta and I remember how long it lasted. But I also remember the havoc that ensued just prior to the "real" age 3 starting when sabotage was re-introduced one week prior.

I would rather see a lengthy beta again that actually gets WORKED ON by the admins then just jump into a new age that has flaws and problems. IF the admins actually plan to work on changes it should be done during a BETA and not the REAL age. Hence what a beta is SUPPOSED to be for!

I also voted for the sabotage to be changed. I would like to see it have 2-4 turns AND I'd like to see it damage but not destroy weapons AND I'd like to see the number of times per day you can sabotage someone reduced back down to the 5 times a day it used to. I would also like to see some sort of sabotage immunity re-implemented like in age 2, but perhaps at a higher level then it was in age 2.

Well, that's just my two cents.

Thanks

lord of storms

5th February 2005, 05:19 PM

I updated my post for the two armies attacking together. Its the same thread as the hospital sujestion link, might want to add the link to the polls too bc i think most ppl looked at that thread for the hospital idea, not the 2armies.

Dvd_X

5th February 2005, 06:01 PM

I have 1 question... sorry If someone already made it, but I have no time to read the whole thread...

KoC admins going to make the Age 4 changes according in a 100% to this poll, or are they just taking it as a suggestion?

Thanks,

-Dvd_X

Blitz

5th February 2005, 06:42 PM

I updated my post for the two armies attacking together. Its the same thread as the hospital sujestion link, might want to add the link to the polls too bc i think most ppl looked at that thread for the hospital idea, not the 2armies.

The link to the thread is in the question right before it, and the general idea of it is fairly simple to understand. It's been brought up a few times, and if they looked up the hospitals, they should also see the 2 armies suggestion, as it is listed as one of the main ideas at the top of the post.

I only linked to the "Heavy Mass Attack" and "Hospitals" suggestions because the rest are fairly simple to understand, even by hearing only the name of the suggestion, so there wasn't much need.

I have 1 question... sorry If someone already made it, but I have no time to read the whole thread...

KoC admins going to make the Age 4 changes according in a 100% to this poll, or are they just taking it as a suggestion?

Thanks,

-Dvd_X
It's all going to be taken as suggestions. Although, if there is overwhelming support for something that isn't too difficult, it will probably be done, this is just meant to bring issues to the Admin's attention and let them decide what to do.

boe

6th February 2005, 02:25 AM

4. Should the Formula of Viewing Gold (Currently 4x Spy vs. Sentry) be Changed?
--Do not change the current formula 146
--Change the gold viewing formula to only needing 3x Spy vs. Sentry 69
--Change the gold viewing formula to only needing 2x Spy vs Sentry 142
--Allow all gold to be viewed by all players 36
--I abstain, this issue is not important to me 10

I liked this question, and I'm glad with the way people are voting it. I picked the 3rd option (2x spy vs sentry). It makes it harder to attack someone at once, but if you spy someone you can easily see how much gold they have.

6. Should sabotage remain in KoC or be changed?
-- Yes, the current system of sabotage should remain in KoC 126
--No, sabotage should be removed entirely 23
--Sabotage should remain, but it should be changed some 248
--I abstain, this issue is not important to me 5

I guess most people are a bit annoyed about the randomness in those sab missions...

7. Would you be in favor of sabotage immunity?
--No, there should be no sabotage immunity 191
--Yes, and sabotage immunity should be similar to Age 2 (at a set point in sentry) 45
--Yes, and sabotage immunity should be related to army size/strength 83
--Yes, and I would be in favor of either option 2 or 3 76
--I abstain, this issue is not important to me 7

I remember the immunity from age2. It made you feel safer once you reached it. But this time I voted No on it. It's just a lot better without it. Everyone can get sabbed and it's the best weapon against people who keep on annoying you.

34. Should searchable attack/intelligence logs be added?
--1. Searchable attack and intelligence logs are not necessary 82
--2. Add a search feature to intelligence and attack logs 270
--3. I abstain, as this issue is not important to me 48

this would be very handy, certainly in the intell logs. I remember knowing I spied on someone but I had a whole bunch of intell logs so I had to go through them page by page to check where it was

Now, if you look at the results of the poll I notice that most people are glad with the way it's set up now and don't want a lot of changes. Only a few obvious ones (like sab or pm'ing officers). So it's not a lot that should be added... so maybe we're going to be lucky and those things will change :)

anyway, nice poll guys :)

Dolky

9th February 2005, 11:16 AM

3. What would you think of changing the KoC site design?

Hmmz don't know actually, It's good but maybe some pictures at fortification...

Look at this site:

http://www.lordsoflegend.com/glossary.php?race=all

That would be nice:)

unseenhero

9th February 2005, 10:02 PM

for the question of hiring an in-game moderator , i think that would be costly and hard to do , people are good about spotting cheaters and turning them in , but something definitely should be done for the hacking....
oh , i also dont really support images or avatars etc... because theres so many people playing ,dont want to slow things down , especially thinking of people with dial-up

SataiDelenn

9th February 2005, 10:52 PM

for the question of hiring an in-game moderator , i think that would be costly and hard to do , people are good about spotting cheaters and turning them in , but something definitely should be done for the hacking....
oh , i also dont really support images or avatars etc... because theres so many people playing ,dont want to slow things down , especially thinking of people with dial-up

Excellent point! I currently have cable, but I do (vaguely) remember the days of dial-up and I remember especially when I couldn't even get access to the site because of how busy it was/is and how people with cable had no problems. I don't think that pics or avys or whatever else would be a good idea. I mean, the admins already have a thing in the rules that says not to refresh the page because it can cause server slow-downs, so why would they want to add pics and avys? I really don't understand this!

_PT_

10th February 2005, 11:41 AM

but something definitely should be done for the hacking....

Why is that ?
If you play KOC by the rules it is impossible to get hacked.
95% of those hacked gave away there login info (for banking) or used programs that tracks down that info.
4% of those hacked used a hotmailadres and gave that away.
1% are other explainable reasons.

But if you just play KOC you can not be hacked, or they should hack the KOC servers. But in that case Denny and LS would be the first to be hacked.

So stop all that wining and crying about hacking. It is their own fault.

U22neos

10th February 2005, 02:44 PM

I hope you guys understand that the results of a poll really don't mean much. What if only the small players that log on once a week vote and then the larger players that are there several times a day see options changed just because there's more smaller players. Seems unfair. I voted, but I doubt the results will reflect the most active players opinions. I don't understand where the option "transfer gold to other players" is coming from either. If you want people to stop cheating then this option should not be in the list.
you have a point but it would be nice to get some of the things. like the sig on our profile page or things like that the small things

Gotjen

10th February 2005, 03:18 PM

Why is that ?
If you play KOC by the rules it is impossible to get hacked.
95% of those hacked gave away there login info (for banking) or used programs that tracks down that info.
4% of those hacked used a hotmailadres and gave that away.
1% are other explainable reasons.

But if you just play KOC you can not be hacked, or they should hack the KOC servers. But in that case Denny and LS would be the first to be hacked.

So stop all that wining and crying about hacking. It is their own fault.

you don't need to give away your info to be hacked... most people get hacked by means of trojans, or because someone hacked into their email.

Jedi

10th February 2005, 07:45 PM

Hopefully the KOC admins will take this poll into serious consideration, there are many good suggestions made.

When is this poll going to end? At least it will give us a good idea :wink: when Age 4 will start. :D

Should the admins declare prizes at the beginning of Age 4?
1. Yes, that would be great! At least we will get to see more banning of cheaters and talk about it in GUA, especially in the top ranks! Haha! :devil:
2. No, I don't play for prizes. Who needs that xbox anyway?
3. No opinion, I don't think I'll get it. Unless by some miracle, people would give me 8,000,000 clicks head start.

_PT_

11th February 2005, 01:21 PM

you don't need to give away your info to be hacked... most people get hacked by means of trojans, or because someone hacked into their email.

You're completly correct here.

But if I just play KOC nobody will know your emailadres besides the admins.

If you start using programs like irc, msn or whatever and you're not carefull enough or use the same emailadres it could be. But it is still your own fault.

I do not believe there are people on this earth who randomly hack pc's and think. Hé there is some KOC info, lets hack that too.

If it was really that simple whole clans would be hacked and wiped out right now.

Gotjen

11th February 2005, 01:51 PM

You're completly correct here.

But if I just play KOC nobody will know your emailadres besides the admins.

If you start using programs like irc, msn or whatever and you're not carefull enough or use the same emailadres it could be. But it is still your own fault.

I do not believe there are people on this earth who randomly hack pc's and think. Hé there is some KOC info, lets hack that too.

If it was really that simple whole clans would be hacked and wiped out right now.

the hacker doesn't need to know your koc email, just an email adress, then they can email you a trojan to get your koc info.

It's also possible that you're not using a good username/email/pass, which is dangerous because:

Script Kiddies (amateour hackers who don't know what they are doing, so they download programs to do it for them) can program in variations to search for in your account. For example, they can tell the program to try every variation on email using yahoo.com as an extension, with your name as the email id.
Meaning, they can search for everything from dVcT to ductt and every possible varation inbetween. At the same time, it can try every password combination that is programmed in. Hackers Dictionaries are like normal dictionaries that have millions of other entries, substituting @ for 'a', ! for 1, 1 for I, V for u, ect ect. so using 1mag1nat1on instead of imagination is NOT going to fool them if they can figure out your email.

(from The Silent Hood forums)

FinalFantasy-

11th February 2005, 04:02 PM

Let us start this damn age plz We have waited too long :(
Poeple joined late in this age wana hava a change too !
that's all and ...

I voted ;)

Danielf

11th February 2005, 04:29 PM

Just to point out something about the poll.
In the case of question 9

9. Would you be in favor of other changes to sabotage?
--No, I would not be in favor of other changes in sabotage 155
--There should be a limit to how much a player can sabotage others 34
--There should be a limit to how much a player can be sabotaged himself 35
--Sabotage should damage, but not destroy, weapons 93
--Spies should lose tools in failed sabotage missions 79
--I am in favor of options 2 & 3 --- 58
--I am in favor of options 4 & 5 62
--I am in favor of options 2, 3, 4, & 5 --- 141
--I abstain, this issue is not important to me 41

Notice how the two options highlighted in redboth have options 2&3.
The option which won this poll got 155. This was option 1 - no changes to be made to sabotage.
Now, options 6 and 8 (the highlighted ones) got 58 and 141, respectively.
Those amount of votes on their own are not enough to win the poll, but as they both include options 2 & 3, then options 2 & 3 get a score of 58 + 141, which is 199, which is more than 155.
This isn't even including the individual votes that 2 and 3 got on their own.
So options 2 and 3 should have won over option 1.
This is probably going to be ignored, but just to let someone know anyway
^_~

_PT_

11th February 2005, 07:20 PM

the hacker doesn't need to know your koc email, just an email adress, then they can email you a trojan to get your koc info.

It's also possible that you're not using a good username/email/pass, which is dangerous because:

Allright. But accepting an email with a trojan is still your own stupidity.
The first thing anybody should learn is not to open mails from people you do not know.

And if your hacked because you used a simple username/email/password (like: Denny, denny@hotmail.com, dennyrules) then it is still your own fault.

Sure the hacker is doing something illegal/wrong, but when you keep your info to yourself and pay a little attention it is impossible to get hacked.

Blitz

11th February 2005, 10:38 PM

Just to point out something about the poll.
In the case of question 9

9. Would you be in favor of other changes to sabotage?
--No, I would not be in favor of other changes in sabotage 155
--There should be a limit to how much a player can sabotage others 34
--There should be a limit to how much a player can be sabotaged himself 35
--Sabotage should damage, but not destroy, weapons 93
--Spies should lose tools in failed sabotage missions 79
--I am in favor of options 2 & 3 --- 58
--I am in favor of options 4 & 5 62
--I am in favor of options 2, 3, 4, & 5 --- 141
--I abstain, this issue is not important to me 41

Notice how the two options highlighted in redboth have options 2&3.
The option which won this poll got 155. This was option 1 - no changes to be made to sabotage.
Now, options 6 and 8 (the highlighted ones) got 58 and 141, respectively.
Those amount of votes on their own are not enough to win the poll, but as they both include options 2 & 3, then options 2 & 3 get a score of 58 + 141, which is 199, which is more than 155.
This isn't even including the individual votes that 2 and 3 got on their own.
So options 2 and 3 should have won over option 1.
This is probably going to be ignored, but just to let someone know anyway
^_~

Don't worry, I took this into account when designing the poll. When I tally up final results, I'll combine the options that are really saying that they approve of two or more options.

Also, on others where players have the option of wanting to change something according to a certain formula that is incremental, I will try to average them, and recommend a solution that would be satisfactory to as many people as possible. :)

Danielf

12th February 2005, 04:45 AM

Don't worry, I took this into account when designing the poll. When I tally up final results, I'll combine the options that are really saying that they approve of two or more options.

Also, on others where players have the option of wanting to change something according to a certain formula that is incremental, I will try to average them, and recommend a solution that would be satisfactory to as many people as possible. :)

:) gdgd. The poll is pretty comprehensive. I hope some of the changes are implemented, although i'd really like the option to transfer gold :dead:
Thanks

Socom_Rafter

15th February 2005, 02:41 PM

balance...balance...balance... if you have more sentry value then the sabbers spy value then you should not be able to be sabbed... just like attacks and defense... if defense is high, attack is defended... and visa versa... also, it should be that all weapons, attack - defense and sentry and spies tools should be open to SABbing... furthermore, an apponent's equal or minimally greater strength of attack / defense / spy or sentry compared to your strength should extrapolate the amount of gold or sab damage one has on another... something to this effect : players should only be able to attack, sab or spy on other players of equal or minimally greater or lesser in strength... this allows a more fair playing field where stronger and/or weaker players play only each other. this will minimize "picking on the smaller guys" syndrome and forcing those stronger to pick on some one their one size! the variance in strength can be a calculated by a few thousand in the ranking system. or something like this... well... thats what i think... sorry for the message to be so long :)

maverick

16th February 2005, 01:56 AM

A few races should be added.
gold transfer should also be enabled.
defense weapons should also get damaged
one should be allowed to change his/her comander unlimited times.

wwat should i click on to vote??????

SataiDelenn

16th February 2005, 11:01 PM

A few races should be added.
gold transfer should also be enabled.
defense weapons should also get damaged
one should be allowed to change his/her comander unlimited times.

wwat should i click on to vote??????

How many more races does KOC need?! There are 4 to choose from. That's plenty!

Yes, gold transfering should be allowed, at least within a clan's/alliance's chain.

Defense weapons currently do get damaged when you are attacked, so I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this thought.

There is no reason to have unlimited Commander changes. You should be able to make up your mind and stick with it unless you are betrayed by your Commander or your Commander quits or moves under someone you don't wish to be allied with. The fact that they are giving 2 Command changes next age is PLENTY!

maverick

17th February 2005, 02:25 AM

my defense weapons don't get damaged.

gold transfer shud also be allowed from commanders to officers and vice-versa

SataiDelenn

17th February 2005, 08:54 PM

my defense weapons don't get damaged.

gold transfer shud also be allowed from commanders to officers and vice-versa

Well, you must have a very small army then. Because the bigger your army, the more often you take damage.

trktom427

18th February 2005, 03:57 PM

you should definately make better offensive weapons, defenseive weapons, sentry weapons and spy weapons. u should also make another race(undead, fairy etc...)

From,
trktom427

maverick

19th February 2005, 01:50 AM

i agree with trktom427.u shud have newer weapons

Danielf

19th February 2005, 05:51 AM

balance...balance...balance... if you have more sentry value then the sabbers spy value then you should not be able to be sabbed... just like attacks and defense... if defense is high, attack is defended... and visa versa... also, it should be that all weapons, attack - defense and sentry and spies tools should be open to SABbing... furthermore, an apponent's equal or minimally greater strength of attack / defense / spy or sentry compared to your strength should extrapolate the amount of gold or sab damage one has on another... something to this effect : players should only be able to attack, sab or spy on other players of equal or minimally greater or lesser in strength... this allows a more fair playing field where stronger and/or weaker players play only each other. this will minimize "picking on the smaller guys" syndrome and forcing those stronger to pick on some one their one size! the variance in strength can be a calculated by a few thousand in the ranking system. or something like this... well... thats what i think... sorry for the message to be so long :)
But spying is about sneaking. It isn't all out against each other, which means it wouldn't always matter if your spy was lower than their sentry.
There could still be a small chance that you could sneak in or whatever.

Master_of_puppets89

19th February 2005, 10:13 AM

Im new but I think age 4 will make it more fun and it all sounds good to me